It would pop, for certain. 14.7PSI is a freak'in lot.
If you made it out of steel, titanium, maybe. But the tensile strength required is really incredible.
Want to prove it, just take an old-school steel coffee can (empty), aim a blow-torch at it for a while, and then dunk it in cold water, open end down.
*CRRRUMMP*
It's dangerous, be careful:~)
Anything that is going to be huge and hold a vacuum will need significant structure. 'Vacuum formed' balloons of pig-iron just won't do it. Cool idea though.
I don't believe that Rene's "I think, therefore I am" is a backhanded attempt of proving that God exist, as I was taught in school.
You were taught wrong.
The attitude of the day was that it was not possible to create an argument that could be proven to be true. PROVEN using symbolic logic etc.
"I think therefore I am" (Je pense, donc je suis), later shortend to "I am, I exist" was the provable argument.
To date it is the ONLY provable arguement. There is no argument that you can make that you can prove to me to be certain. You cannot even prove, TO ME, that YOU exist.
You can only show that, in SOME form or another you, yourself, exist. You may not actually be human. Perhaps you are in a simulation. Perhaps you are god, day-dreaming. Perhaps you are simply you.
Anyway, you are wrong at least once in pretty much every sentence in which you assert something.
There *IS* indeed evidence for evolution leading to in-ability to breed true. Note the 'breed true' part. Offspring are generally sterile ('Jackass' mean anything to you?) which means that, while breeding is possible, there is no motivation to do so. Add a few more years of genetic drift and 'poof', no more breeding allowed at all.
The statement I can somewhat agree with would be 'Science is nothing more than the modern religion'. However, I agree only because you are seeing it as an outsider sees it. From the outside, for joe schmoe to accept Science, he is doing so in exactly the same fasion as he would accept a religion; he has no understanding of what is going on, he has never looked at a single primary document, he has never done math above multiplication. To Joe Schmoe, the difference between science and religion is exactly ZERO. He must choose which to believe, based on ignorance.
To a scientist, science is NOT a religion. A good scientist takes as little as possible on faith. New ideas are tolorated... unless you don't show a bunch of proof or have demonstrations ready. Old ideas are, indeed, considered as gospel... until someone can show why they are crap.
Scientists are human. As we age, we get stuck in our ways. It becomes harder for us to accept new ideas. That is simply human... not religion.
And finally.... Invoking a god for these arguments is the ultimate cope-out, for people too stupid to understand that introducing a God into a problem suddenly makes a finite-difficulty problem infinitly difficult. A finite complexity sea-shell suddenly requires an explanation for how god came into existance in order to create said sea-shell.
Which is easier to understand: The earth is in orbit around a huge ball of fire, and rotates 360 degrees about its axis every 24 hours, thus causeing day and night, and seasons. OR Apollo, one of many such gods, drives his chariot of fire across the sky each day.
Contrary to the massive attack against the 'per watt' arguement, the wattage requirement *is* an important aspect of any wireless communication setup. Try doing uplink/downlink calculations for satellite communication -- power is *very* important.
And we are now starting to look at the whole MAN (bah, stupid name. Metropolition area network), where total coverage areas are within an order of magnitude of satellite communications distances.
Now, I'm not saying that this 'new tech' isn't BS. From the looks of it they don't provide enough data for us to be able to tell one way or another. Which is, of course, a good sign of BS.
My understanding of the use of the term 'observation' in the quantum mechanical sense is that of an active observer. E.g. someone who went out of their way to create a setup to witness some event happening.
An *inactive* observer, e.g. a mouse, affects the future history of an event, for instance by being in place to transfer bubonic plague from a flea to a human. But the mouse did not set out to see what would happen by being in a certain place at a certain time.
However, I am being a fool and arguing semantics. I think what you say is generally correct, except I simply wouldn't use the word 'observation'.
The alternative is that massive portions of the world simply exist most of the time in a blurred quantum state, until some observer walks into the area.
For instance, most of the day your bedroom is unoccupied. Lets pretend a mouse will or won't decide to chew on an electrical cord based one the decay of a radioactive isotope of cobalt causing the death of a brain cell or three. Does your room exist in a quantum state of (burned/unburned) until the moment you walk in?
No, because the neighbors would smell smoke, and call the fire department long before you got home (you hope) if the mouse chews on the wire.
And that, in a nutshell, is my arguement in favor of your view; things must happen in a linear fashion from our point of view. Emphasis on 'from our point of view'. I don't even want to think about that fun puzzle.
Which is not to say that we (those with conciousness) do not or can not modify the outcome of events -- obviously we do. It is just that conciousness is not a requirement for the existence of any of the finite but many universes.
A large number is not infinity. The number of quantum states in a volume of space is a HUGE number.... but it is not infinite.
If the number of atoms in the universe is a finite number, and the size is finite, and time is finite, then there are a finite number of states which can occur before you start 'repeating' universe 'states'.
Of course, time is not finite then as t goes to infinity so too does the number of possible 'universes' (quantum states). But, at any given time, the number of universes will be finite.
Turbo was 'normal' mode, really, and the alternate state, 'slow as &^#*', was a compatability mode for some seriously jacked communication protocols for computer-to-computer links.
An observer is only required if every quantum state is not expressed.
E.g. if we assume that we are the only 'true universe', then an observer is required.
If we assume, however, that there are a finite (but incredibly large number) of universes which express every possible state of the universe, then we don't need the observer hypothosis.
Personally the shift to an assumption that humanity is the observer which drives the universe strikes me as the same human-centric crap which has been pulled since humanity first became afraid to die.
The universe has existed for 15 or so billion years. Humanity for a few million. Sooo, either the previous 14billion 950 million years is a collective delusion, or we are not the observer.. or all quantum states are represented in multiple universes.
Or the whole theory is naive, but really, I'm not qualified to present any alternatives;~)
'Hyperspace' is an interested read on the subject.
There have also been a couple of good articles on the general subject in Sci-Am or New Scientist of late.
If you read up on the Social Security website, the system you describe is exactly what the US system was intended to be.
The SS admin 'strongly recommended' that the SSN only be used by governmental agencies. It just never got codified into law, and businesses saw it as a nifty unique personal identifier.
Not going to be unique for long; only a billion possible values (haha, wonder who UID 0 was?;~) ), and that is assuming perfect distribution, which of course doesn't exist.
with a population of ~300 million, we should be damned near out by now. And assuming we start 'recycling' numbers, we are only four or five generations from having major issues pop up from THAT being an issue, what with the now essentially permanent records-keeping which computer access allows.
Or fun ones like sickle cell anaemia which have a purpose, but a purpose which in the near(ish) future we won't need (hopefully -- and I mean malaria defense, for those not familiar).
I hear diborane (di? tetra? pretty sure it is diborane) is rather fun too, as it ignites on contact with air (so, picture a normal explosion where chunks go flying...:~) )
a.) they were out of control, as they were no longer attatched to that which controlled them; the shuttle stack. And at least one of them corkscrewed like a typically unstable rocket. However, this means nothing, and is not an insult in any way, shape or form. Stability was not a design requirement for the SRBs, as they were not intended to fly 'alone'.
The fact that they did survive being detached and tossed about without breaking up *is* impressive. The amount of bending moment placed upon those SRB's must have been incredible.
b.) YES! I am very glad to hear that NASA is moving back to a system which allows for an escape mechanism. Of course if they add a solid to the stack that will make an escape virtually impossible, as you cannot safely eject while under thrust.
Solids can blow up, if you have any kind of grain fracture -- it's a surface area thing. But the quality control on the SRBs is high enough I would be surprised if it ever happened.
The real problem with solids is that you cannot jettison anything while the solids are burning.
Solids are dandy for cargo; not for human-rated systems.
Solids are dandy for cargo for a number of reasons: storable, can be added in increments to match the payload (e.g. base vehicle can lift 10 tonnes, but if you add 3 strap-ons you can lift 13, or 6 strap-ons for 15), cheaper system cost etc.
Solids are not cheaper for a design which will always be lifting the same mass (to the same altitude). Such as a people mover.
It comes down to ISP and mass -- best ISP for a solid is around 250 seconds (from memory) and best for liquid is about 450 seconds. There are better for both, but you can't fly them -- liquid fluorine isn't popular with OSHA, etc. Mass-wise goes to the strap-on game. If you know that 75% of your flights are going to be at mass x, but 15 percent will be at mass 1.10*x and 10% will be at mass 1.15*x, then you have a design problem -- do you design a rocket that has the guts to push 115% of your average payload to orbit, and just eat the fact that you will be wasting massive amounts of fuel on most launches simply because of the extra design weight (not to mention the cost of designing the larger engines, etc)? Or do you design a base rocket that can do the average, and add strap-on points for those fewer flights which need the extra oomph?
Mass producing the fuels is far cheaper for a LOX/hydrocarbon or a LOX/H2 engine than the fuel for a SRB -- the optimization problem is a bastard though... when is it cheaper to go with the cheaper fuel but more finicky liquid rocket, and when is it cheaper to go with the more expensive fuel but the cheaper solid system? If we are going to pretend we are designing an honest to god space flight SYSTEM, and we are in the game for the long haul, then we MUST HAVE the processing infrastructure in place ON SITE (or close, and connected by a closed, non-public transportation system).
At any rate, any 'professional' who proposes a solid-booster attached to a human craft as a long-term solution automatically gets docked major points in my book. Engineering the safety factors into a solid-based system will always cost more than engineering an escape pod. And you can't use an escape pod if you can't turn off the engine. And it isn't because the solid will fail -- no, that has few moving parts, is rather well understood -- but since you can't turn off the solids, you have to build the the entire system to a higher spec.
IAARS, and would be happy to explain my views further and with numbers for those who argue politely against said views of mine:~). I admit, however, that it is rather unlikely that I will ever flex on my belief that an escape system is an absolute must.
I didn't state specifically that I assumed that if you need a 'named' IP address, then you are going to be a 'host'.
For example, if I am *hosting* myrandomdomain.com2 then it is a host -- is this always the case in real life, right now? No, because we've been jacked around by DNS as well as the lack of available IP addresses. You can have multiple hosts on the same IP address even (use port addresses in the DNS record).
If I have an SQL server on that same network, its IP address would be a subdomain. If my house is on a 'named' domain, my toaster would not have its own domain, even if it did have its own IP address.
I would not have crap like myRandomDomain.com2 and myRandomDomainForMySQLServer.com2, and try to run them in the same network.
Realistically, this would increase the number of records that the average gateway would hold on to. The trade-off would be that there would be no need for a DNS cache, nor DNS lookups -- the gateway would handle this 'stuff' instead of a DNS server.
So, my contention is that, yes, that is how routing tables work. Because I am talking about the top-level network when I say 'create a naming algorithm'. Your toaster doesn't need a domain name. And if you really think it does, then buy it a f*ing gateway.
At no point did I say 'every IP address will map to a domain name'. The reality is that you would have to specifiy chunks of addresses to represent 'named IPs' in each of many languages. It would be a hell of a task. In my mind, getting rid of the leech that is the DNS system would be worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
now make that 250 pages and you'll have a great (kinda)sci-fi techno/social/etc classic.
Not sure they can, actually; as part of Challenger blowing up there was some idiotic law about NASA doing anything remotely commercial being verboten.
No crap!
.......
A few of those suckers on my wall and I wouldn't need to go tanning on the weekends.
or go to the hospital for my soon-to-be-required chemo
It would pop, for certain. 14.7PSI is a freak'in lot.
:~)
If you made it out of steel, titanium, maybe. But the tensile strength required is really incredible.
Want to prove it, just take an old-school steel coffee can (empty), aim a blow-torch at it for a while, and then dunk it in cold water, open end down.
*CRRRUMMP*
It's dangerous, be careful
Anything that is going to be huge and hold a vacuum will need significant structure. 'Vacuum formed' balloons of pig-iron just won't do it. Cool idea though.
I don't believe that Rene's "I think, therefore I am" is a backhanded attempt of proving that God exist, as I was taught in school.
You were taught wrong.
The attitude of the day was that it was not possible to create an argument that could be proven to be true. PROVEN using symbolic logic etc.
"I think therefore I am" (Je pense, donc je suis), later shortend to "I am, I exist" was the provable argument.
To date it is the ONLY provable arguement. There is no argument that you can make that you can prove to me to be certain. You cannot even prove, TO ME, that YOU exist.
You can only show that, in SOME form or another you, yourself, exist. You may not actually be human. Perhaps you are in a simulation. Perhaps you are god, day-dreaming. Perhaps you are simply you.
Anyway, you are wrong at least once in pretty much every sentence in which you assert something.
There *IS* indeed evidence for evolution leading to in-ability to breed true. Note the 'breed true' part. Offspring are generally sterile ('Jackass' mean anything to you?) which means that, while breeding is possible, there is no motivation to do so. Add a few more years of genetic drift and 'poof', no more breeding allowed at all.
The statement I can somewhat agree with would be 'Science is nothing more than the modern religion'. However, I agree only because you are seeing it as an outsider sees it. From the outside, for joe schmoe to accept Science, he is doing so in exactly the same fasion as he would accept a religion; he has no understanding of what is going on, he has never looked at a single primary document, he has never done math above multiplication. To Joe Schmoe, the difference between science and religion is exactly ZERO. He must choose which to believe, based on ignorance.
To a scientist, science is NOT a religion. A good scientist takes as little as possible on faith. New ideas are tolorated... unless you don't show a bunch of proof or have demonstrations ready. Old ideas are, indeed, considered as gospel... until someone can show why they are crap.
Scientists are human. As we age, we get stuck in our ways. It becomes harder for us to accept new ideas. That is simply human... not religion.
And finally.... Invoking a god for these arguments is the ultimate cope-out, for people too stupid to understand that introducing a God into a problem suddenly makes a finite-difficulty problem infinitly difficult. A finite complexity sea-shell suddenly requires an explanation for how god came into existance in order to create said sea-shell.
Which is easier to understand:
The earth is in orbit around a huge ball of fire, and rotates 360 degrees about its axis every 24 hours, thus causeing day and night, and seasons.
OR
Apollo, one of many such gods, drives his chariot of fire across the sky each day.
God isn't schizophrenic
Nope. Bipolar: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28484
eh?
My understanding is that this is not the case.
If we had interference, that would imply that we already had proof of waves.
There is no difference between trying to pick out signal 'B' from 'A' + 'B' if A is zero, or A is huge, provided that A is not a function of time.
Heh.
:~)
Funny, but in reality I'll bet that they keep some sort of IP tracking going
Which is where the 'power' comes in.
Contrary to the massive attack against the 'per watt' arguement, the wattage requirement *is* an important aspect of any wireless communication setup. Try doing uplink/downlink calculations for satellite communication -- power is *very* important.
And we are now starting to look at the whole MAN (bah, stupid name. Metropolition area network), where total coverage areas are within an order of magnitude of satellite communications distances.
Now, I'm not saying that this 'new tech' isn't BS. From the looks of it they don't provide enough data for us to be able to tell one way or another. Which is, of course, a good sign of BS.
Ignore my last post -- you are correct and used the correct term.
My understanding of the use of the term 'observation' in the quantum mechanical sense is that of an active observer. E.g. someone who went out of their way to create a setup to witness some event happening.
An *inactive* observer, e.g. a mouse, affects the future history of an event, for instance by being in place to transfer bubonic plague from a flea to a human. But the mouse did not set out to see what would happen by being in a certain place at a certain time.
However, I am being a fool and arguing semantics. I think what you say is generally correct, except I simply wouldn't use the word 'observation'.
The alternative is that massive portions of the world simply exist most of the time in a blurred quantum state, until some observer walks into the area.
For instance, most of the day your bedroom is unoccupied. Lets pretend a mouse will or won't decide to chew on an electrical cord based one the decay of a radioactive isotope of cobalt causing the death of a brain cell or three. Does your room exist in a quantum state of (burned/unburned) until the moment you walk in?
No, because the neighbors would smell smoke, and call the fire department long before you got home (you hope) if the mouse chews on the wire.
And that, in a nutshell, is my arguement in favor of your view; things must happen in a linear fashion from our point of view. Emphasis on 'from our point of view'. I don't even want to think about that fun puzzle.
None :~) Well, not none, but no special position.
Which is not to say that we (those with conciousness) do not or can not modify the outcome of events -- obviously we do. It is just that conciousness is not a requirement for the existence of any of the finite but many universes.
A large number is not infinity. The number of quantum states in a volume of space is a HUGE number.... but it is not infinite.
If the number of atoms in the universe is a finite number, and the size is finite, and time is finite, then there are a finite number of states which can occur before you start 'repeating' universe 'states'.
Of course, time is not finite then as t goes to infinity so too does the number of possible 'universes' (quantum states). But, at any given time, the number of universes will be finite.
Turbo was 'normal' mode, really, and the alternate state, 'slow as &^#*', was a compatability mode for some seriously jacked communication protocols for computer-to-computer links.
An observer is only required if every quantum state is not expressed.
;~)
E.g. if we assume that we are the only 'true universe', then an observer is required.
If we assume, however, that there are a finite (but incredibly large number) of universes which express every possible state of the universe, then we don't need the observer hypothosis.
Personally the shift to an assumption that humanity is the observer which drives the universe strikes me as the same human-centric crap which has been pulled since humanity first became afraid to die.
The universe has existed for 15 or so billion years. Humanity for a few million. Sooo, either the previous 14billion 950 million years is a collective delusion, or we are not the observer.. or all quantum states are represented in multiple universes.
Or the whole theory is naive, but really, I'm not qualified to present any alternatives
'Hyperspace' is an interested read on the subject.
There have also been a couple of good articles on the general subject in Sci-Am or New Scientist of late.
If you read up on the Social Security website, the system you describe is exactly what the US system was intended to be.
;~) ), and that is assuming perfect distribution, which of course doesn't exist.
The SS admin 'strongly recommended' that the SSN only be used by governmental agencies. It just never got codified into law, and businesses saw it as a nifty unique personal identifier.
Not going to be unique for long; only a billion possible values (haha, wonder who UID 0 was?
with a population of ~300 million, we should be damned near out by now. And assuming we start 'recycling' numbers, we are only four or five generations from having major issues pop up from THAT being an issue, what with the now essentially permanent records-keeping which computer access allows.
I'm done with the run-on sentences now.
First run:
Writer: 7 seconds
Word: 2 seconds
Second (after closing both):
Writer: 2 sec
Word: 1 sec
AMD 64 3000 ish with 2 GB RAM, 10K RPM Raptor drive
the developers went blind when they watched the Dr. Who supernova episode.
Yup.
Or fun ones like sickle cell anaemia which have a purpose, but a purpose which in the near(ish) future we won't need (hopefully -- and I mean malaria defense, for those not familiar).
There exist no examples of good knee-jerk laws.
Thanks for the laugh :~)
I hear diborane (di? tetra? pretty sure it is diborane) is rather fun too, as it ignites on contact with air (so, picture a normal explosion where chunks go flying... :~) )
a.) they were out of control, as they were no longer attatched to that which controlled them; the shuttle stack. And at least one of them corkscrewed like a typically unstable rocket. However, this means nothing, and is not an insult in any way, shape or form. Stability was not a design requirement for the SRBs, as they were not intended to fly 'alone'.
The fact that they did survive being detached and tossed about without breaking up *is* impressive. The amount of bending moment placed upon those SRB's must have been incredible.
b.) YES! I am very glad to hear that NASA is moving back to a system which allows for an escape mechanism. Of course if they add a solid to the stack that will make an escape virtually impossible, as you cannot safely eject while under thrust.
Solids can blow up, if you have any kind of grain fracture -- it's a surface area thing. But the quality control on the SRBs is high enough I would be surprised if it ever happened.
:~). I admit, however, that it is rather unlikely that I will ever flex on my belief that an escape system is an absolute must.
The real problem with solids is that you cannot jettison anything while the solids are burning.
Solids are dandy for cargo; not for human-rated systems.
Solids are dandy for cargo for a number of reasons: storable, can be added in increments to match the payload (e.g. base vehicle can lift 10 tonnes, but if you add 3 strap-ons you can lift 13, or 6 strap-ons for 15), cheaper system cost etc.
Solids are not cheaper for a design which will always be lifting the same mass (to the same altitude). Such as a people mover.
It comes down to ISP and mass -- best ISP for a solid is around 250 seconds (from memory) and best for liquid is about 450 seconds. There are better for both, but you can't fly them -- liquid fluorine isn't popular with OSHA, etc. Mass-wise goes to the strap-on game. If you know that 75% of your flights are going to be at mass x, but 15 percent will be at mass 1.10*x and 10% will be at mass 1.15*x, then you have a design problem -- do you design a rocket that has the guts to push 115% of your average payload to orbit, and just eat the fact that you will be wasting massive amounts of fuel on most launches simply because of the extra design weight (not to mention the cost of designing the larger engines, etc)? Or do you design a base rocket that can do the average, and add strap-on points for those fewer flights which need the extra oomph?
Mass producing the fuels is far cheaper for a LOX/hydrocarbon or a LOX/H2 engine than the fuel for a SRB -- the optimization problem is a bastard though... when is it cheaper to go with the cheaper fuel but more finicky liquid rocket, and when is it cheaper to go with the more expensive fuel but the cheaper solid system? If we are going to pretend we are designing an honest to god space flight SYSTEM, and we are in the game for the long haul, then we MUST HAVE the processing infrastructure in place ON SITE (or close, and connected by a closed, non-public transportation system).
At any rate, any 'professional' who proposes a solid-booster attached to a human craft as a long-term solution automatically gets docked major points in my book. Engineering the safety factors into a solid-based system will always cost more than engineering an escape pod. And you can't use an escape pod if you can't turn off the engine. And it isn't because the solid will fail -- no, that has few moving parts, is rather well understood -- but since you can't turn off the solids, you have to build the the entire system to a higher spec.
IAARS, and would be happy to explain my views further and with numbers for those who argue politely against said views of mine
You forgot '..the software developers didn't understand it,'
Yeesss... Ok....
I didn't state specifically that I assumed that if you need a 'named' IP address, then you are going to be a 'host'.
For example, if I am *hosting* myrandomdomain.com2 then it is a host -- is this always the case in real life, right now? No, because we've been jacked around by DNS as well as the lack of available IP addresses. You can have multiple hosts on the same IP address even (use port addresses in the DNS record).
If I have an SQL server on that same network, its IP address would be a subdomain. If my house is on a 'named' domain, my toaster would not have its own domain, even if it did have its own IP address.
I would not have crap like myRandomDomain.com2 and myRandomDomainForMySQLServer.com2, and try to run them in the same network.
Realistically, this would increase the number of records that the average gateway would hold on to. The trade-off would be that there would be no need for a DNS cache, nor DNS lookups -- the gateway would handle this 'stuff' instead of a DNS server.
So, my contention is that, yes, that is how routing tables work. Because I am talking about the top-level network when I say 'create a naming algorithm'. Your toaster doesn't need a domain name. And if you really think it does, then buy it a f*ing gateway.
At no point did I say 'every IP address will map to a domain name'. The reality is that you would have to specifiy chunks of addresses to represent 'named IPs' in each of many languages. It would be a hell of a task. In my mind, getting rid of the leech that is the DNS system would be worth it.